Re: 'remember those propositions are based on my reading of Benjamin' Mine are based on reading Benjamin and much else besides.
And I notice you make no attempt to refute the points I make below. Just saying your 'thinking is based on Benjamin' hardly cuts the mustard. DA On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Prove them wrong or show me the error of my ways remember those propositions > are based on my reading of Benjamin - so your task is double to show that > they are questionable in relation to benjamin and then in general > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:00:06 +1000 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> Now (1) obviously I can't prove wrong what 'you find' in Benjamin. >> >> But (2) the second part of your email contains some very questionable >> propositions. >> >> Take: 'The stylistic changes that have effected art >>> since the mid-19thcentury can be attributed in large part to artists9 >>> responding to the growing influence of mechanical reproduction and mass >>> media.' >> >> Which artists are we talking about? I think it is quite possible - >> even likely - that photography (let's avoid the clumsy 'mechanical >> reproduction') affected the Salon painters. They were in large measure >> trying to compete with it - and doing so quite well for a while >> because they had colour and photography didn't (The cinema killed them >> off finally) >> >> But the idea that photography was somehow a factor for Van Gogh, >> Cezanne etc seems to me a furphy. I know it is a favorite idea in art >> history books but it is always just asserted - never demonstrated. I >> think those painters were responding to much deeper cultural >> developments than the invention of photography. (I am not going to try >> to argue that here. But then Benjamin doesn't argue his position >> either - he just asserts it.) >> >> But above all, you - and Benjamin - need to be clear which painters >> you are talking about. To lump the salon painters in with Cezanne etc >> would be very odd. >> >> There are heaps of other problems in what you say. (eg "Beginning with >> the premise that the work of art attained its >> autonomy with art for art sake at that time," "its aura (the >> mechanisms of its secular >> autonomy constituted by the 3residual affect of its historical origins as a >> cult object and fetish" "hreatens to transforms art into a thing that exists >> only for exhibition." "the contradictorily impulse to >> realize an art that is both immutable (eternal) and one that is forever >> changing and political in its aesthetic." ) >> >> But that will do me for now. I'm not here to write essays.Maybe I'll >> come back to those. >> >> DA >> >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Here prove this wrong >>> >>> My interest in Walter Benjamin9s The Work of Art in the Age (Epoch) of its >>> Technical Reproducibility (1935-36)* is pragmatic. I find its structure >> and >>> content to be a mechanism, which supplies a model for focusing on and >>> rethinking such subjects as art history, the role of the artist as author/ >>> producer, the nature of cultural production9s varied practices, as well as >>> the relationship between aesthetics and cultural politics. This text >> offers >>> me the means by which to structure these elements into a network in which >> it >>> is possible to account for the respective impact of each component on the >>> identity and the economies of the other9s. This platform offers me a >>> critical perspective from which the provisional art historical narrative >>> that claims to reflect Benjamin9s Art Work essay can be analyzed. Such >>> sociological accounts though formalist in nature takes as their central >>> argument the prospect that the stylistic changes that have effected art >>> since the mid-19thcentury can be attributed in large part to artists9 >>> responding to the growing influence of mechanical reproduction and mass >>> media. Beginning with the premise that the work of art attained its >>> autonomy with art for art sake at that time, it then goes on to re-affirm >>> the view that mechanical reproduction not only threatens this illusionary >>> autonomy, but actually by negating its aura (the mechanisms of its secular >>> autonomy constituted by the 3residual affect of its historical origins as a >>> cult object and fetish) threatens to transforms art into a thing that >> exists >>> only for exhibition. This schema, susceptible to the logic of positivism, >>> Benjamin acknowledges leaves un-resolved the contradictorily impulse to >>> realize an art that is both immutable (eternal) and one that is forever >>> changing and political in its aesthetic. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Derek Allan >> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
